The Questioning Christian

Category: Core Christianity

  • An interesting speculation about the Resurrection

    Here's a comment from a reader, who prefers to remain anonymous but who has approved my posting this.  Boldfaced emphasis is mine, and I've added some extra paragraphing.

    I came across your Blog this weekend and find it very refreshing and informative. You have addressed many of my doubts and concerns about the mainstream Church's doctrine that I have been either too afraid, or insufficiently knowledgeable to answer on my own. For this I am indebted to you.

    Today I was reading through your essays on the Resurrection – an event which I have never been able to accept as being literally true, based solely on my gut feeling that 'if it doesn't make sense, it probably didn't happen'.

    Your alternate explanations have resonated with what I was unable to clearly formulate on my own, the feeling that it just didn't fly. (Sidebar: I'm not an attorney but I have spent most of the past 40 years in the field of video surveillance and intelligence gathering. One develops a sort of Jedi ability to separate fact from fiction)

    I wonder if you have considered a third possible explanation of the Resurrection story? That is, that when Jesus was removed from the cross he was actually still alive. Barely, of course, and in critical condition, but to all outward appearances (and given the level of medical knowledge available at the time) he was thought to be deceased.

    Figuring this option into your description of Joseph of Arimathea removing Jesus from the tomb, perhaps he, Joseph, discovered Jesus to be still alive and took him to a secret location where he could receive some healing and be safe from discovery. Maybe through God's intervention he recovered – and this would account for subsequent 'appearances' to his followers after a period of time. Obviously he would know that it would be unwise to stick around, and would have made his escape into obscurity.

    Am I right in thinking he remained on the Cross for only a few hours, due mainly to the approaching Sabbath, and could conceivable have survived? And the fact that Joseph whisked him away so quickly may also have been because he felt there was a chance Jesus wasn't dead? 

    My response, slightly edited:

    Thanks for reaching out, [NAME].  Nearly all of your conjecture about Jesus' being taken off the cross barely alive and then "escaping into obscurity," as you put it, is certainly more plausible than either (i) the conventional orthodox narrative, or (ii) Hugh Schonfield's The Passover Plot, which always struck me as far-fetched. 
     
    I'm intrigued by your idea that a recovered Jesus, after the scare of his near-death experience, might well have changed his mind about trying to overthrow Israel's oppressors and usher in God's reign.  In that scenario, though, we'd still have to account for Jesus' brother James' being part of the early church; this would presuppose that Jesus didn't simply go back to his old life in Nazareth, but instead abandoned his family and effectively disappeared.  That makes me lean more toward the notion that Jesus simply died and was secretly buried.
     
    Sadly, we're not likely ever to know the truth (unless Benjamin Franklin was correct).

  • Suggested reading: Bibles and other religion books

    A reader sent me an email this week, excerpted below:

    … Today, I happily stumbled upon your blog via a web search regarding the possibility of being Christian while not believing in the divinity of Jesus. I have spent the past hour or so looking over your previous posts, and I am finding them most helpful in my current faith journey.

    I particularly value your definition of faith as: (i) accepting that a Creator exists and (ii) trusting that, in the end, all will be well. This resonates deeply with me.

    … I realize you have not posted much lately, but I hope you can assist me. Could you please recommend: 1) books that reflect your views on Christianity and faith, and 2) a good English translation of the Bible?

    (Extra paragraphing added.)
     
    Many thanks to that reader, whose email inspired me to put together the following lists.
     
    (The links below are not "affiliate" links, incidentally.)
     

    Bible

    I normally quote from the New International Version, for two reasons: (1) It's fairly readable, and (2) it's a favorite of evangelicals and conservatives — if I quoted from a more-"liberal" translation, that might give those folks an excuse to discount or ignore the point I'm trying to make. 
     
    My own personal favorite Bible is the New Revised Standard Version, especially the HarperCollins Study Bible, which has lots of footnotes and annotations. 
     
    I've found useful the NKJV Greek-English Interlinear New Testament. ("NKJV" stands for New King James Version.)

    Books

    The following list of books is in no particular order, from scanning across my bookshelves:
    I've omitted some writers whose works I found valuable but that I regard as less accessible, such as:
    • John Dominic Crossan, a scholar and former Catholic priest
    • Paula Frederiksen, a Boston University professor
    • John Polkinghorne, a renowned Cambridge University particle physicist turned Anglican priest, but some of whose science-based arguments I find less than convincing
    • A. N. Wilson
    • Paul Johnson
    I've also omitted writers whom I regard as assuming too many facts not in evidence or being insufficiently skeptical, such as N.T. Wright (conservative) and Marcus Borg (liberal).
     
    Finally, I've omitted various translations of primary sources.
     
     
     
     

     

  • How the American interior was settled — a word movie that brings to mind the Creator’s ongoing organization of the universe

    You've heard of word pictures? And you've seen those speeded-up videos of how a tall building or a ship is built?  A piece in the online NY Times by history professor Christopher Phillips provides a vivid fast-motion "word movie" of how river transportation enabled the settlement of the American interior. It made me think of what it seems to be all about in our universe, in which we humans serve as created co-creators (to use Lutheran theologian Philip Hefner's phrase), helping in a titanic construction project.

  • Would God think less of orthodox Christians for praying with others who didn’t share their beliefs?

    I seem to be getting some post ideas from an ongoing discussion at TitusOneNine. Here’s a thought experiment I posed there in response to a comment from one of that blog’s more rigorously-orthodox participants.

    THE SETTING: Imagine that:

    • A group of Hindus, Jews, Muslims, and doctrinally-orthodox Christians, meet regularly for prayers.
    • All are devout, all their beliefs and prayers are sincere.
    • When a specifically-Christian prayer is said aloud, the non-Christians mentally ‘translate’ the prayer into their own respective religious idioms. The same is true when a specifically-Hindu prayer is said, etc.

    QUESTION 1: In general, does God take a lesser view of, say, Hindus than he does of Christians? How about orthodox Christians versus heretical ones?

    QUESTION 2: Does God take a lesser view of Christians when they pray in a theologically-heterogeneous congregation?

    QUESTION 3: Do Christians’ prayers lose some portion of their effectiveness if they’re prayed in a congregation that happens to include non-Christians?

    If your answer to any of these is “yes,” then please explain.

  • Redefining church

    Here’s a proposition for debate, inspired by a discussion at TitusOneNine and a posting last week by Nick Knisely:

    Resolved, that the members of ‘the church’ are those people — reasserter, reappraiser, Jew, Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, etc. — who are willing:

    1) to pray ‘next to’ one another, even if the prayer of the person next to you is no more than a grudging acknowledgement that maybe a Creator of some sort might indeed exist;

    2) to treat each other’s prayers with equal dignity, even when there’s grave disagreement over underlying suppositions; and

    3) to collaborate in seeking the best for others as for themselves, even if for no other reason than that this seems to give a species a survival advantage over the long term.

    Under this definition of ‘church,’ a given individual’s theological beliefs would be of no particular relevance, except of course to the extent those beliefs influenced the individual’s actions.

    I know some would object to such a definition of ‘church’; I’m curious how you’d articulate that objection.

  • Religious people make better citizens, says new study

    From The Christian Century:

    The scholars say their studies found that religious Americans are three to four times more likely to be involved in their community than nonreligious Americans. They are more apt to work on community projects, belong to voluntary associations, attend public meetings, vote in local elections, attend protest demonstrations and political rallies and donate time and money to causes—including secular ones.

    At the same time, Putnam and Campbell say, their data show that religious people are "nicer": they carry packages for people, don’t mind folks cutting ahead in lines and give money to panhandlers.

    The scholars say the link between religion and civic activism is causal, since they observed that people who hadn’t attended church became more engaged after they did. "These are huge effects," Putnam said.

    The reason for the increased civic engagement may come as a surprise to religious leaders. It has nothing to do with ideas of divine judgment or with trying to secure a seat in heaven. Rather, it’s the relationships that people make in their churches, mosques, synagogues and temples that draw them into community activism.

    Putnam calls them "supercharged friends," and the more such friends people have, the more likely they are to participate in civic events, he says. The theory is that if someone from your "moral community" asks you to volunteer for a cause, it’s really hard to say no. "Being asked to do something by a member of your congregation is different from being asked to do something by a member of your bowling league," Putnam said.

    The effect of these friendships is so strong, the scholars found, that people who attend religious services regularly but don’t have any friends there look more like secularists than like fellow believers when it comes to civic participation.

    "It’s not faith that accounts for this," Putnam said. "It’s faith communities."

    Daniel Burke, Congregants make better citizens, says new study, The Christian Century, June 16, 2009, p. 16 (bold-faced emphasis added).

  • Love God, love your neighbor: two hinges on a door

    An semi-anonymous commenter at TitusOneNine who goes by “mig+” (the plus sign usually signifies that s/he is a priest) offers a thought-provoking metaphor for the Summary of the Law, about which I’ve written here before:

    Since Jesus says there are two commandments from which the divine guidance hangs, I suppose Jesus imagined the Law and the Prophets as a door pivoting on two hinges.

    Formerly I was a cabinetmaker and I can tell you it doesn’t make much difference whether a top or bottom hinge is broken. Either way the door won’t work (show the way).

    I think the point Jesus was making is that love of God and love of neighbor are inseparable.

    (Extra paragraphing added.)

    Related posts:

  • The Resurrection was probably a misunderstanding, but even so we have ample reason to celebrate Easter

    Each of us has to make a bet on whether the Resurrection actually happened the way the church claims, as celebrated by billions this morning. What we’re betting is our lives, and the way we live them.

    In essence, the church asks us to go “all in” on the proposition that Jesus was actually raised bodily from the dead. That bet has always been way too rich for my blood; I think there are more plausible explanations for the fact that Jesus’ followers found ‘his’ tomb to be empty on the morning after the Sabbath, and that later on some of those followers decided that they had encountered him — as recorded in questionable stories written down decades later in a different language.

    Nor is it persuasive, at least to me, that some of Jesus’ friends and their later colleagues, by no means all of them, claimed —

    In my judgment — and ultimately each of us has to make our own judgment about this bet — these claims are grounded, at best, in a misunderstanding that took on a life of its own; and at worst, in wishful thinking aggravated by a you’re-either-with-us-or-against-us obstinacy.

    But that’s not the end of the inquiry. The Resurrection misunderstanding catalyzed both a belief system and a social organization. For nearly two millennia, that belief system and that organization have provided inspiration and assistance to billions of people in helping with the continuing creation of the universe. 

    Not all of that assistance and inspiration have been positive by any means. But we do seem to do our best work in that area when we try to follow the Summary of the Law that was at the heart of Jesus’ teaching.  The Summary’s simple rules of thumb seem to capture something fundamental about the universe. Their utility gives us plenty of reason to try to follow Jesus simply because of what he taught, and because of his extreme faithfulness to what he saw as his call from the Creator.

    (Although extreme faithfulness is not necessarily a good thing always, as seen in the example provided by Muslim suicide bombers.)

    if we were so inclined, we could conjecture that somehow, directly or indirectly, the hand of God might have been at work back then — just not quite in the exact way the church claims.

    So while, in all likelihood, the Resurrection didn’t happen the way the church says, that doesn’t mean we should belittle the Resurrection claim as false.

    Instead, we should commemorate what likely did happen on that first Easter and in its aftermath. We can celebrate, with gratitude but also with open eyes, the immeasurable (if not unalloyed) good that has evolved from it.

    * * *

    This essay was inspired by a sermon posted by the Rev. Michael Hopkins on his blog (hat tip: Susan Russell).

  • The decline of Protestantism: You can’t end a drought with renewed dedication to the old rain dances

    It continually amazes me how conservative Christians bury their heads in the sand about the gradual decline of Protestant Christianity. These folks refuse even to consider, let alone acknowledge, an obvious possibility:  That the tenets of ‘orthodox’ Christianity are failing to persuade increasing numbers of people, at least in the so-called first world, because those tenets just don’t fit with everything else humanity knows about the Creation.

    (FOOTNOTE: I suspect that much of the growth that we see in the prosperity-gospel megachurches is due to entertainment value, and that the growth in some of the evangelical- and Pentecostal churches arises in part from crowd-pleasing factors such as fervor, certitude, and exclusivism.)

    The topic came into focus this week with a recent survey indicating that “none” is the only religious category that appears to be growing in every state of the Union.  The survey’s press release quotes one observer as saying:

    “It looks like the two-party system of American Protestantism—mainline versus evangelical—is collapsing,” said Mark Silk, director of the Public Values Program. “A generic form of evangelicalism is emerging as the normative form of non-Catholic Christianity in the United States.” [Emphasis added.]

    So mainline Protestantism is dying (it’s thought), and evangelical Michael Spencer predicts, in the Christian Science Monitor, that evangelicalism will soon follow:

    We are on the verge – within 10 years – of a major collapse of evangelical Christianity. This breakdown will follow the deterioration of the mainline Protestant world and it will fundamentally alter the religious and cultural environment in the West.

    Some of my traditionalist friends at TitusOneNine offer their usual rejoinder: This decline could be reversed if the church would just get back to right thinking and -preaching. In his CSM comment, Michael Spencer argues that:

    2. We Evangelicals have failed to pass on to our young people an orthodox form of faith that can take root and survive the secular onslaught. … Coming generations of Christians are going to be monumentally ignorant and unprepared for culture-wide pressures. [¶]

    4. Despite some very successful developments in the past 25 years, Christian education has not produced a product that can withstand the rising tide of secularism. Evangelicalism has used its educational system primarily to staff its own needs and talk to itself. [¶]

    6. Even in areas where Evangelicals imagine themselves strong (like the Bible Belt), we will find a great inability to pass on to our children a vital evangelical confidence in the Bible and the importance of the faith.

    [Emphasis added]

    These folks are like the Indian, er, Native American, rain dancers who insisted that the relentless drought was due to their failure to perform their rain dances properly, and not to any inefficacy on the part of rain dancing itself.

    Or in business terms:  Consider what happens when a sales force consistently fails to make its numbers, quarter after quarter, even after the sales VP and many managers are replaced. Almost invariably, the product designers will still claim that the problem just has to be with the incompetence of the sales people. In the designers’ minds, it simply isn’t possible that people are not buying their product because they can’t tell whether the product actually does anything for them. 

    It’s sad that Jesus’ example is in danger of being increasingly forgotten or ignored, thanks to his ancient- and modern successors who mulishly insist on preaching their dogmas, instead of his simple restatement of the Summary of the Law and his New Commandment.

  • Repentance and self-flagellation are not the same thing

    (From Kimberlee Conway Ireton, Season of darkness [Why Lent?], The Christian Century, March 10, 2009, at 10-11:)

    Unfortunately, the word repentance often leaves a bad taste in people’s mouths and conjures up images of self-flagellation, both literal and figurative. I used to think of repentance this way.

    As an adolescent, I thought it meant reciting unhealthy mantras to convince myself of my own unworthiness (as if I needed to be convinced).  As a young adult, I rejected repentance altogether, thinking it damaging to my fragile sense of self-worth.

    And then, the summer I turned 30, I had my first experience of true repentance.

    Every day for an entire month, as I journaled, prayed and read the lectionary, God peeled away layers of myself. For the first time, I saw envy, despair and self-pity not as personality quirks, but as sins.

    I knew, more deeply than I’d ever known, that I had failed — failed to love my friends, my husband, my son, myself; failed to pray when I had said I would; failed to notice the good gift that was my life. Instead, I had complained and whined and been ungrateful and ungracious. I felt deeply convicted of my sin.

    But I did not feel despair. In fact, I felt freedom — and joy. I cried a lot, but they were tears of sorrow and gratitude. …

    (Paragraphing edited, emphasis in original.)

    Related post: